[Fiend]

I don't understand why people moan about big books for stuff that isn't multipitch.

Price??

[Will Hunt]

I don't understand why people moan about big books for stuff that isn't multipitch.

Price??

Look at the price of various books and their size. The relationship is non-linear. Adding on an extra x pages makes relatively little difference to the unit cost.

[andy moles]

If weight is that much of a problem maybe drop the portable fan, fingerboard, pointless sit-start pad, CBD gummies, 5th 4K camera and tripod, armada of toothbrushes etc etc etc.

I've never carried any of that (OK maybe two brushes once) but I still reserve the right to complain a small bit about having to carry a guidebook that could anchor a small boat up a mile of heathery hillside.

Yes, I can and do take photos. But it rather defeats the purpose of a printed guidebook.

[bolehillbilly]

Given that on one hand you've got something like North Wales Bouldering which is fairly definitive, but it is almost all the good stuff anyway...... And on the other hand you've got things like Churnet Bouldering or Lancashire Bouldering which have a mixture of great stuff for outsiders and not so great (or occasionally dire) stuff for locals, but are are slimmer and more affordable books....

This is just a function of the area though surely, rather than a different cut-off. Or is there really loads of stuff in the Churnet that they didn't put in the guide because it didn't make the cut?

Everything in the sectors covered went in the Churnet guide including  projects and some suggested link ups so it's a real mixture of quality and more local value problems. It's still one of my favourite guidebooks partly for this reason   Some areas were completely cut at a late stage, Ousel and Lion etc due to access concerns but there is still info on UKC in the photos section.

[Will Hunt]

Each to their own. In my view, in a world where physical guidebooks are becoming less relevant they have to do something that allows them to stand apart from the apps and the online databases. FA details, anecdotes about the FA (the YMC guides are full of gold, especially the 2005 limestone brick), etc etc are all part of that. There are passive things in the world that are purely functional and bring no pleasure in the use of them - sandpaper, toothpicks, the yellow pages; then there are things that people love to use - cars, particular items of clothing, a really good kitchen knife. If guidebooks are more the former than the latter then they become replaceable.

[andy moles]

anecdotes about the FA (the YMC guides are full of gold, especially the 2005 limestone brick)

To be fair, in a guidebook I'm way more psyched for the flecks of gold than a comprehensive listing of who climbed every problem.

Back to my comment about action photos - make them count.

[Bonjoy]

With regard to recording first ascents of boulder problems I feel the ship has already sailed. Bouldering had been practiced, principally unrecorded, for decades, prior to bouldering guides being developed; and as such any first ascensionist detailed will be fragmentary at best.

Any problem of moderate difficulty near to a roped climb has probably been played on for decades, even with a bouldering only venue seemingly just discovered and freed from the dirt and foliage there is every chance that some keen climber who used to live down the hill was climbing there in the 60’s or 70’s.

I feel a good guide should credit the initial developers of any newer venues, and detail the first ascents of the more classic or significant problems, but wholesale recording of every problems first ascent is simply not possible to achieve, it’s hard enough to be consistent with the naming of problems!

You're presenting three fairly common arguments there which could be summarized as:
1.The record is incomplete, therefore not worth maintaining.
2.Everything’s been done years ago anyway, therefore the record is inaccurate, therefore not worth maintaining.
3. It’s not possible to maintain a complete record, therefore only the briefest of overviews should be retained.

To 1. I’d say, all historical records are incomplete. That’s an argument for better record keeping IMO, not an argument for throwing our hands up in the air and declaring it a lost cause. Incomplete is preferable to non-existent.

To 2. I’d say this is an almost total fallacy. There are grains of truth to it, but in the main it’s just some self-serving BS that old giffers come out with because they don’t understand what has actually been done and they overestimate the depth and scope of what their generation actually did. I’m old enough to have experienced the olden days and the rose tinted reimaginings of it. Recording of FA info is our best and only defense against this tiresome self-indulgent wankery.

I agree, up to a point with 3. In the absence of definitive info about the past it isn’t necessary or desirable to know who did what and when about every single line. I’m generally in favour of more knowledge rather than less though, especially online where space doesn’t matter. My main gripe with brief historical summaries is that they are inherently biased and skewed by the knowledge, opinions, and preferences of the writer. They will always overrepresent the guy who shouts loudest, or knows the writer, or has the most photographer mates.

[User deactivated.]

If weight is that much of a problem maybe drop the portable fan, fingerboard, pointless sit-start pad, CBD gummies, 5th 4K camera and tripod, armada of toothbrushes etc etc etc.

Phew! At least I don't have to leave my ladder at home!

[steveri]

I’m increasingly coming to the view that we’re collectively letting the perfect be the enemy of the good with regard to the UKC database. At this point I think it might be time to take stock of the prospect of the BMC ever setting up a rival database and accept it isn’t going to happen...

Mm. Given that the BMC now seems to be out of guidebooks, where there's at least a sniff of a return, I can't see much prospect of them throwing a ton of resource at a data project simply for the greater good. I know the UKC/Rockfax empire arouses sniffiness, but I'd rather the data were somewhere rather than nowhere. The BMC is pretty small, smaller still when you cut out HR, finance, team and everyone else this couldn't possibly sit with. It's a Big Job.

[Dac]

In reply to Bonjoy:

I agree that a complete, accurate record of bouldering first ascents is both a noble aim and a worthwhile historical document. However my viewpoint is shaped principally by pragmatism: any potential author(s) have only so much time and enthusiasm to dedicate to the rather herculean task of creating a guide. I believe that their limited resources would be better dedicated to ensuring accurate route descriptions, grades, and approach information (and yes good action photos) than to the minutiae of who first climbed that nondescript wall left of the arête and when, or if when climber x first climbed ‘Roof problem LH low (without break)’ in 1983 if it was from the ground or stood on that rock.

As for biased brief historical summaries: any modern record of historical events is biased and skewed by the knowledge, opinions, and preferences of the writer, no matter how lengthy it may be

So yes, recording first ascent information is a fundamentally worthwhile objective, it is more whether a guidebook produced by a team possessed of finite time and motivation is the best place for it. As you say yourself: online, space does not matter, and the guy who shouts loudest, the friend of the guidebook writer and the old giffer who think it all got climbed years ago can all argue the toss until the rocks crumble to dust (or an accurate first ascent record is established).

Another quick note on historical accuracy: climbers and guidebook writers are rarely scholars. When ‘Esoteric area bouldering guide (2nd edition)’ is written 15 years down the line it’s unlikely that the authors will revisit any source material as far as dimly recalled first ascent details are concerned, so if shouty photographer mate of the author, or the old giffer who thinks it all got climbed years ago have gotten they way with the information recorded in the first edition of the guide then it’s likely there in perpetuity, correct or not. Better to have less first ascent information than inaccurate information, and this information is likely to be easier to establish for the classic lines and significant additions.

[Wellsy]

I would personally always spend more to get little anecdotes, quotes, descriptions, poems, drawings etc in a guidebook. It's culture innit. And besides I buy the guidebook when I want to get a nice physical copy, if I just want to look up a problem I usually go online.

Peakbouldering.info was great for me when I was just starting. I wish it was still around. But yeah FA name and date, descriptions, little photos with lines, the lot please!

[SA Chris]

I would personally always spend more to get little anecdotes, quotes, descriptions, poems, drawings etc in a guidebook. It's culture innit. And besides I buy the guidebook when I want to get a nice physical copy, if I just want to look up a problem I usually go online.

I'd agree with this, i love all the extra stuff like the top 5s and quotes in the old Stanage Guide, The craziness of the Nick White South Devon and Dartmoor and Ted Collins' recent Divie Gorge online topo. Extra weight to carry to the crag is just good training, and guides are like bigger LEGO sets, the bigger the book the better the value.

[fatneck]

Give me ALL the detail please.

I want the Maccies of guidebooks and I want to get fat on them....

I collect them, I like to read them, I want to know about all the chossy roadside crags in the Bristol area AND who climbed them all (most recently) and I want to know who shouted the loudest and knew the best photographers despite the fact that I will hardly ever visit.

Also lols @ SA Chris

Extra weight to carry to the crag is just good training

 

[hongkongstuey]

For large areas that have long walk ins (North Wales, Lakes) I would like the areas split up into volumes that could be bought individually or as a set that come in a nice box (got to look good on the bookshelf!). This would save me having to photocopy pages as I currently do to save weight on the walk in to longer crags.

i thought about this for the HK Guide once it started hitting the 500 page mark - but it just upped the production cost and effort into the 'too much hassle' category. In the end i settled for the easier option of adding QR codes at the start of each main area in the guide that link to back to the free online stuff on www.hongkongclimbing.com so people can just scan and have easy to access / use info for their days out (probably a bit of a rarity in having free online stuff though as it drives down sales a bit, but i figured the people that want a guide will get one regardless).

Also makes it nice and easy for people to check for updated info on an area too that way.

[Fiend]

It's worth noting that when I'm talking about the girth, I guess I'm mostly assuming that there would be a fairly modern non-RF format with a decent balance of some history, FAs, some colour text, but not too much and not padding the book out with that. In terms of size the aspect I'm curious about is to what extent is having something that is very fully definitive (including a lot of likely locals-only stuff) palatable and desirable to the wider climbing market.

i thought about this for the HK Guide once it started hitting the 500 page mark - but it just upped the production cost and effort into the 'too much hassle' category. In the end i settled for the easier option of adding QR codes at the start of each main area in the guide that link to back to the free online stuff on www.hongkongclimbing.com so people can just scan and have easy to access / use info for their days out (probably a bit of a rarity in having free online stuff though as it drives down sales a bit, but i figured the people that want a guide will get one regardless).

This is an interesting comparison and definitely seems like the logical alternative to fully definitive (very select with no other information around seems like the worst option). Especially if it keeps a guidebook to a more manageable size and price (stuff like NWB proves there is an increase in price, and an increase in customers grumbling (maybe before buying it anyway)).

[Alan James, Rockfax]

I used UKC for years thinking it was a free platform for skint folk like me to access info, i deleted most of what i put up and stepped away from it when i found out they struck a deal with Rockfax and now any info/Topo's/descriptions will be monetised.
I do however see the point made that it seems to be the only system that works long term

For the record, the databases on UKC and Rockfax have the same root. Nick Smith and myself set up the Rockfax route database in 2002. This was then used as the basis for UKC Logbook which we set up in 2005 using a data-dump from Rockfax. I became sole owner of UKClimbing.com Limited in 2008 and at that point I joined my two companies into one called UKClimbing Limited. So any 'deal' would had to have been between me and me.

I do recognise people's concerns about what happens to their voluntary contributions to UKC/Rockfax. Up to now (17 years into UKC Logbooks, 14 years in to the current company configuration and 30 years into Rockfax) UKC Logbooks are still free to use and being improved all the time, not least by the amazing contributions of the users but also from our technical additions. We certainly have no plans to change this.

I think the reason it works is because we have continually invested in it. As a resource, it is an incredibly useful tool for guidebook writing. It has always been public and that is its major strength so it would be stupid to change this. Being public means that any guidebook company can use it and we very much welcome this.

Happy to answer any other questions if people have them.

Alan

[scragrock]

I used UKC for years thinking it was a free platform for skint folk like me to access info, i deleted most of what i put up and stepped away from it when i found out they struck a deal with Rockfax and now any info/Topo's/descriptions will be monetised.
I do however see the point made that it seems to be the only system that works long term

For the record, the databases on UKC and Rockfax have the same root. Nick Smith and myself set up the Rockfax route database in 2002. This was then used as the basis for UKC Logbook which we set up in 2005 using a data-dump from Rockfax. I became sole owner of UKClimbing.com Limited in 2008 and at that point I joined my two companies into one called UKClimbing Limited. So any 'deal' would had to have been between me and me.

I do recognise people's concerns about what happens to their voluntary contributions to UKC/Rockfax. Up to now (17 years into UKC Logbooks, 14 years in to the current company configuration and 30 years into Rockfax) UKC Logbooks are still free to use and being improved all the time, not least by the amazing contributions of the users but also from our technical additions. We certainly have no plans to change this.

I think the reason it works is because we have continually invested in it. As a resource, it is an incredibly useful tool for guidebook writing. It has always been public and that is its major strength so it would be stupid to change this. Being public means that any guidebook company can use it and we very much welcome this.

Happy to answer any other questions if people have them.

Alan

Hi Alan
Thanks for your response and if what you say is entirely accurate then my apologies i have clearly got my facts wrong.
I have used UKC database/system for years in order to document the areas i have developed up here in the Highlands because its free to everyone and easy to use. My fear{and others} is that the info we put in when adding new lines will somehow be piggybacked on to a Rockfax guide from UKC, is this the case?

I have No argument about the usefulness of UKC logbooks/moderation etc, as far as i am concerned its the best system out there and i would happily return to the fold if my worries are unfounded.

Cheers

Rob
 

[Alan James, Rockfax]

My fear{and others} is that the info we put in when adding new lines will somehow be piggybacked on to a Rockfax guide from UKC, is this the case?

Thanks Rob for those comments.

It is certainly not the case in the Highlands since we are now working with the SMC to digitise their data for Rockfax Digital. This has been a very mutually beneficial relationship. I can't vouch for how much the SMC use the feedback uploaded to UKC Logbooks in their books, but I doubt people would see that as a problem. We have no plans for a 'Scotfax'.

In other areas where we have our own books, it is the feedback and grade/star votes that are most useful. Where route descriptions are uploaded by users, we would only ever use those after contacting the person in question. There have been instances in the past where route descriptions from other guidebook publishers have been typed in verbatim by users, almost always innocently thinking they were just being helpful. We have tried to remove these and have now put a system in place that makes it pretty difficult to do this accidentally.

Alan

[fatneck]

Kind of OT but i just took delivery of this beauty.

It's a really lovely guide. A bit unusual and full of nice quirks. I'm looking forward to using it in anger and seeing whether directions etc are up to scratch.

My esoteric companion has the other one and I'm keen to match them against each other in terms of usefulness as an actual guide but in terms of aesthetics, I really like this one!

[rginns]

Kind of OT but i just took delivery of this beauty.

It's a really lovely guide. A bit unusual and full of nice quirks. I'm looking forward to using it in anger and seeing whether directions etc are up to scratch.

My esoteric companion has the other one and I'm keen to match them against each other in terms of usefulness as an actual guide but in terms of aesthetics, I really like this one!

It's fascinating how those two guides to the same area are completely different, Elliot's guide being much more of the standard well produced guide and the one you've bought being more of a journal style guide - plenty of great illustrations and quirks.
It's almost impossible to compare the two objectively..